The court emphasized that failure to frame essential issues, particularly regarding limitation under Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, invalidates the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. A.B. Dey, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Cachar in E.C. Case No.13/2018.

3. On 08.02.2018, late Ajit Urang was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-11-BC-8675 (Tipper). On that day, one of the front tyres was punctured. The petitioner intended to change the tyre. Therefore, he lifted the vehicle by using a jack. But the jack slipped and the deceased sustained head injuries. Thereafter, on 10.02.2018 at about 7.20 P.M., he succumbed to his injuries.

4. His mother Golamoni Urang filed the application before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.18,000,00/-.

5. The Respondent No.2, being the owner of the said vehicle admitted that the deceased was his employee in respect of the said vehicle. He also admitted that the accident took place in course of employment.

6. The present appellant, inter alia, claimed that the present appellant claimed that the claim of the Respondent No.1 is barred under Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

7. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

I. Whether the deceased, Ajit Urang was driver of the vehicle (Tipper) bearing Registration No.AS-11-BC-8675 at the time of the accident?

II. Whether the policy of insurance and other relevant documents of the said vehicle and the driving licence of the deceased driver, Ajit Urang were valid or not at the time of the accident?

III. What was the monthly salary of the deceased driver?

IV. What was the age of the deceased, Ajit Urang at the time of the accidental death?

V. Whether the accident and death of the deceased occurred in course and out of his employment under the O.P. No.1?

VI. If the above issues are proved in favour of the deceased, what will be the quantum of compensation?

8. The Respondent No.1/claimant examined herself. She exhibited some documents also. She was cross-examined by the appellant.

9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Commissioner passed the impugned judgment.

10. The learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.13,17,650/-.

11. I have gone through the impugned judgment.

12. In the written statement filed by the appellant Insurance Company, it was pleaded that the claim was bad on account of limitation as mentioned in Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, referred to as “the Act of 1923”), but the learned Commissioner did not frame any issue on this point.

13. Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, reads as under:

10. Notice and claim.—

(1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death:

Provided that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are applicable, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the employee was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease:

Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the employee to absent himself from work, the period of two years shall be counted from the day the employee gives notice of the disablement to his employer:

Provided further that if an employee who, having been employed in an employment for a continuous period, specified under sub-section (2) of section 3 in respect of that employment, ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupation